I've just realized that I haven't read this one on time. It's been over a month now and looks like nothing has been terminally broken just yet, right?
Cos On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 02:43AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > From what I am seeing, majority of community members are OK with CTR with a > suggestion that we raise the bar for becoming a committer into Ignite (this > will require a separate thread). > > If there are no strong objections, let's give CTR a shot. We can always > come back to this discussion if needed. > > I have added "Commit-Then-Review" section to Jira process: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Jira+Process > > Feel free to comment. > > D. > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > +1 for RTC. For now rules to become a committer are pretty "soft", CI and > > JIRA processes are still changing, etc. I believe without additional > > control quality of our product will deteriorate in such environment. > > > > Let's graduate first, establish development processes, define requirements > > to become a committer and only then start thinking about switching to CTR > > which is for sure more suitable for well-established TLP. > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23AM, Vasilisa Sidorova wrote: > > > > In a perfect world I agree with Brane. > > > > > > > > But there is top class from each igniter to trust each others on the > > > 1000% > > > > and always to be ready that something go sideways. This process take > > > time. > > > > > > Actually, no one is talking about 100% trust. That's why post-commit > > > reviews > > > are welcome, and reverts aren't removed from the table as a faculty of > > last > > > resort. > > > > > > We are talking about trusting a committer not to do silly things that > > break > > > the master. People will be making mistakes anyway; reviewers are people > > too > > > and will be making mistakes as well. There's no way to stop it: but > > > there're > > > ways to mitigate the harm and to make sure bad commits are few and far > > > apart. > > > > > > Cos > > > > > > > So I think that our Jira process should be flexible because Ignite is > > > young > > > > project. > > > > > > > > As a first step we can get together to commit simple fixes without > > review > > > > and take as a "simple" issues in Jira with "trivial" priority. > > > > > > > > When our community credit of trust will grows up we can review Jira > > > process > > > > and decide to take as a "simple" issues in Jira with "minor" priority > > or > > > > find some new solution. > > > > > > > > Etc... > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Vasilisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > View this message in context: > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1917.html > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > > > Nabble.com. > > > > >
